Abingdon Business Park

Abingdon Business Park – Forest Stand Delineation and Forest Conservation Plan
 
In response to plans to create an industrial park on a 326-acre parcel near the Route 24 and Interstate-95 interchange, land use advocacy groups from Harford County and beyond signed a letter addressed to Mr. Brad Killian, Director of Planning and Zoning for Harford County.

The proposed Abingdon Business Park is located within Abingdon Woods bounded by I-95, Route 24, Route 7 and Abingdon Road. The legal and practical concerns include extensive deforestation (planned clear cut of 220 acres of forest) and potential for negative impacts to water quality are detailed in the full letter printed below. 

The letter begins…

“The undersigned citizens and organizations are writing in opposition to the proposed Abingdon Business Park, located at the southeast corner of I-95 and Route 24. The undersigned have serious legal and practical concerns about the extensive deforestation proposed under the current plan and the associated negative impacts to water quality. This project proposes substantial deforestation that appears to violate local and state laws regarding forest conservation and is contrary to County policy as stated in the County’s Green Infrastructure Plan.”  READ LETTER Continue reading “Abingdon Business Park”

Overlays – What Are They?

What Is An Overlay?

Officially it is “any specially mapped district which is subject to supplementary regulations or requirements for development”.  Every parcel of land in the County is zoned. An overlay sits on top of that zoning and modifies the normal usage allowed for every property which lies “under” the overlay. Overlays may restrict or enhance development. Restrictive overlay examples are the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area and the Floodplain district overlays.

Because the land beneath the overlay is fragile, certain types of development are not allowed even though the County has approved zoning for more intense development. Many of our restrictive overlays are handed down by State legislation. The past several years has seen the growth of development enhancing overlay legislation. A good example is the Edgewood Neighborhood Overlay District. Zoning restrictions are relaxed in this region with the hope of spurring the revitalization of commerce, residential neighborhoods and civic pride. Rather than rezoning large districts and changing every zoning regulation to reflect the desired new use, an overlay easily enacts the change in allowed uses by a single act of legislation.

The ease with which an overlay may happen should make us stop and think. An overlay may not always be a good idea. Several years ago, an overlay was proposed that would allow industrial use on agriculturally zoned land. Quite a change in zoning. While the underlying zoning remains unchanged, the over-the-top overlay may cause significant change.

Stormwater

On June 21, 2016, Harford County Council passed a state required financial assurance plan which described how the County will accomplish the stormwater runoff control required by Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) by the end of the County’s pollution permit, also called the EPA Clean Water Act Permit. This requirement is part of the larger program to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries (e.g. Winters Run, Broad Creek, Bush River) by 2025. The reduction of stormwater runoff pollution is important because it is the only source of water pollution that is increasing. 
 
Harford’s financial assurance plan clearly stated that the County intended to remediate only half of the stormwater pollution it is required to stop.  The reason for this shortfall was described as inadequate finances. Finances are inadequate because the County Executive and County Council eliminated the stormwater management fee, without identifying an adequate funding source to replace it. In addition, the County is appealing the terms of its current permit so that it does not have to comply with current and future pollution control requirements. 
 
The County has submitted a financial assurance plan that may be unacceptable and misleading about what will be accomplished with available funding. EPA administrators have already stated that EPA will not accept unused sewage treatment capacity as credit for stormwater runoff control as proposed by the County. More important, such a claim for credit does not reduce pollution in any way and especially not pollution caused by stormwater runoff.
 
The County also proposes to obtain pollution control credit for connecting septic systems to sewers or by converting septic to the best available technology. This exchange of pollution control seems reasonable and will probably result in a reduction of nutrient pollution, but it does nothing to reduce the siltation of our waters or reduce the risks of flood damage from stormwater runoff. An example of a much better trade is to assist farmers in planting cover crops and/or stream side wooded buffers in exchange for urban stormwater management where urban management is not feasible. Cover crops and wooded stream side buffers reduce erosion, sedimentation, nutrient pollution and increase stormwater infiltration, thus reducing the risk of flooding. But of course, this kind of action requires funding.
 
Finally, the financial assurance plan claims that grants will provide some of the funding needed. If the granting agency is the federal government and it considers septic system – sewer connections and unused sewage treatment capacity claims for pollution reduction credit as a reallocation of funds, rather than funding of genuine pollution control, additional grants are very unlikely. 
 
The financial assurance plan seems to be part of a pattern of avoiding stormwater runoff control. The plan clearly states that the County does not have the finances necessary to reduce sedimentation and nutrient pollution required by state and federal plans. The County also acknowledges this situation in the new Master Plan – Harford Next Water Resource Element Plan – Appendix 2. The County has budgeted a hundred thousand dollars to  join some other counties to litigate the requirements of the state and federal water pollution control plans rather than develop a replacement for the funding program it completely canceled. In addition, a recent survey revealed that developers complied with the County’s Erosion and Sedimentation Act only 34% of the time, and the County has presented no plans to increase the compliance rate either through education or enforcement. 
 
So it appears that Harford County is unwilling to develop adequate funding sources for needed  programs that result in significant water quality improvement. For example, County administrators used and are still using the term “Rain Tax” to mislead the public about the problem and the need for solutions.  Rain is an uncontrollable natural process – but hot, dirty, destructive runoff from heavy rain is created by people and their impervious roads, parking lots, and buildings.  Government must participate in educating our citizens about the problem and take the lead in developing fair, equitable and effective stormwater control programs. 
 
The stormwater runoff control fee had many problems and needed revision or replacement instead of total elimination. Corrective efforts, so far, have been grossly inadequate as evidenced by the financial assurance plan and the County Master Plan. Unless the current County Administration and Council believe that government, landowners and businesses have a right to pollute and to flood downstream properties, we must accept that we have an obligation to change our ways and fix these man-made problems.